2004 Democratic Primary

[mddem2004]

Economic indicators post solid gain - LEI +0.5%
 
Conference Board says its index rose 0.5 percent in May, coming in a shade above forecasts.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - A gauge meant to forecast the economy's direction in the next several months rose at a solid clip in May, a research group said Thursday.

The Conference Board said its index of leading indictors rose 0.5 percent to 116.5 last month after rising in each of the last two months.

Economists on average had forecast an increase of 0.4 percent for May, according to a survey by Briefing.com.

Eight of the ten indicators that make up the leading index increased in May, the business research group said.

The biggest positive contributors were increases in weekly manufacturing hours and real money supply.

The negative factors were consumer expectations and stock prices.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/17/news/economy/lei/index.htm

And on the flip side of the Bush economic coin since taking office......

Real income declined 1.5%
Record number of personal bankruptcies 2002 - 2003.
Record number of children fell below poverty level.
Record number of Americans without health insurance....44 million.
Costs for higher education up 28%.
Costs for prescription drugs average up 14% a year 2001 - 2003.

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

Oh....but thats right.....that top 2% of income earners (Bush's donor base) needed their taxes cut.

Pathetic.....  

[mddem2004]

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

WOW!  That's      $1.153 Trillion in just three years!   But..., if that is the one that gets you, then you should at least get your facts straight:

FY2003 -375.3B
FY2002 -157.8B
FY2001 +127.4B

That's $0.404 Trillion, not the $1.153 Trillion you stated.

Your quite right, my numbers for 02 & 03 were wrong.

But you forgot Bush's own FY2004 budget deficit projections of $521 billion which would make $925 billion in deficit spending on his watch.

You also forgot to mention that 02 and 03's numbers used the Social Security Trust Fund for General Revenue expenditures, somthing that hasn't been done since 1997 to make those years deficits appear smaller.

You also forgot to mention that Bush's first OMB Director, Mitch "Hide The Red Ink" Daniels, used Expected Corporate Reciepts for FY 02 in the FY01 budget so that he would appear not to be dipping into the SS Trust Fund in FY01.

Its kinda like the way the administration forgot to mention to Congress that the $400 billion Republican Medicare Bill would actually cost $530 Billion the day after Bush signed it because they refused to allow the Medicare Actuary's report to be viewed by Congress before the vote.

Much like the way the administration, when submitting its budget this year, forgot to include ANY costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and won't submit those numbers until after the election.

People may not forget this one though....

National Debt on Jan. 20, 2001  -  $5.88 trillion
National Debt Today                   -  $7.21 trillion
(per national debt clock)

Total Debt accumulated on Bush's watch as of TODAY -
$1.33 trillion. Let's see those Enron accountants you have there in Texas fudge that one.......

Sad thing is.......Before Congress leaves for its summer recess they will have to raise the nationl debt ceiling (the second time on Bush's watch) to $7.76 trillion to keep the government solvent.

But thats right.....those top two percenters just had to have their tax's cut.....

[mddem2004]

And on the flip side of the Bush economic coin since taking office......

Real income declined 1.5%
Record number of personal bankruptcies 2002 - 2003.
Record number of children fell below poverty level.
Record number of Americans without health insurance....44 million.
Costs for higher education up 28%.
Costs for prescription drugs average up 14% a year 2001 - 2003.

and the one that gets me.......
record $515 billion deficit in 2003 ( on top of the $420 billion the year before , and the $218 billion the year before that.......)

Oh....but thats right.....that top 2% of income earners (Bush's donor base) needed their taxes cut.

Pathetic.....  

Sources on all your info?

And don't give me raw numbers, raw numbers are always deceptive.  There are mroe Americans today than at any point in history.  Give me percentages.

AS for some of your points:

Cost of higher education has been skyrocketing since the 80s, and continued to do so under Clinton in the 90s.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/highereducation/factsheetcost101003.htm

The RIch get richer?  Not quite.  Look at the share of wealth in the top 5% of the US.  Is it rising?  No, it is dropping.  The top 5% has lost ground in terms of total share of wealth.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-221.pdf

So the loss in real income over the past few years has disproportionately effected the top 5%.

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income  -  Falling Income
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2003/02/24/daily43.html  -  Bankruptcies
http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpf04.html  -  Children
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pov-s13.shtml  -  Children
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1617-8064.html  -  Uninsured
http://www.kltprc.net/emergingissues/Chpt_167.htm  Higher Education
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NKV/is_3_4/ai_98626335  -  Prescrption Drugs

Two caveots: my numbers on falling income of 1.5% and higher education costs under Bush at 28% were quotes from a Senior Fellow of the Brooking Intitute during a CSPAN segment. As you will see in both listed sources above under those categories, they state falling income of 3.3% for years of 2001 and 2002. 1.5% is an average over Bush's term. You will also see under the source for higher education that in the school year 2003 to 2004, cost increases were 14% for that year alone, hence I'm sure his quote of 28% is probably on the mark for total increases during Bush's term.

[mddem2004]

That's the "national debt" is NOT the "public debt".  The 'national debt' never decreased under Clinton, even during the surplus years.

OK, lets talk Public Debt:
9/28/01 Publically Held Debt = $3.34 Trillion
6/16/04   "            "        "     = $4.23  Trillion

Thats an $890 billion debt increase in 2 years and 9 months. Thats a 26% increase in less than 3 years.

Unsustainable.

And even if Bush's red ink comes in "well south" of $395 billion as you claim, again those numbers include NONE of the operational costs of Iraq and Afghanistan which of course they will not disclose.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm

[mddem2004]

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_income  -  Falling Income
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2003/02/24/daily43.html  -  Bankruptcies
http://www.nccp.org/pub_cpf04.html  -  Children
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/sep2003/pov-s13.shtml  -  Children
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1617-8064.html  -  Uninsured
http://www.kltprc.net/emergingissues/Chpt_167.htm  Higher Education
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NKV/is_3_4/ai_98626335  -  Prescrption Drugs

Two caveots: my numbers on falling income of 1.5% and higher education costs under Bush at 28% were quotes from a Senior Fellow of the Brooking Intitute during a CSPAN segment. As you will see in both listed sources above under those categories, they state falling income of 3.3% for years of 2001 and 2002. 1.5% is an average over Bush's term. You will also see under the source for higher education that in the school year 2003 to 2004, cost increases were 14% for that year alone, hence I'm sure his quote of 28% is probably on the mark for total increases during Bush's term.

Bankruptcies: They are predicting a 7% inclrease, one which did not follwo through.  Increase for the next 12 months was only 2.8%

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5033402/

Children in poverty:  First, lets throw out the insanely biased socialist site, and go with your other source.  No where does it say this number is a record, and I again point out that raw numebrs are not as meaningful as percents for comparison.  The trend also began in 2000,  not under Bush's watch.

Higher Education:  As I said before, the college costs have been rising since teh 80s and has not stopped.  This is a problem much older than Bush.  Bush and the Rep house are looking to control it too.

Drug costs:  Same as education cost, a longer term probelm than Bush.

Falling real income: No dispute, just want to say I far more often hear 1.1% than 1.5%.  What do you expect in a recession?

I thought you would get a kick out of the"World Socialist Website"!

Granted all these problems were here before Bush, in fact the rate of increase in prescription drugs is actually still increasing but at a slower rate. I do contest the higher education costs however. Lack of Fed aid to my own state has devestated what help there is out there and the percent of annual increase in cost is skyrocketing here. I doubt the conservative House will do much in this area.

Don't get me wrong...Clinton probably got too much credit for the 90's economy and Bush is probably getting too much blame now, but it goes with the territory.

I am however very concerned with the balloning Fed red ink, the effect it will have on interest rates, the effect it will have on the future availability of credit, and of course how it will effect the ability for us to meet the future Soc Sec retirees.  

[mddem2004]

OK, lets talk Public Debt:
9/28/01 Publically Held Debt = $3.34 Trillion
6/16/04   "            "        "     = $4.23  Trillion

Well, now you're taking the debt from beginning-fy2002 to almost the end of fy2004.  That's a different time period than the fy2001-2003 timeframe you orginally mentioned.

---

And even if Bush's red ink comes in "well south" of $395 billion as you claim, again those numbers include NONE of the operational costs of Iraq and Afghanistan which of course they will not disclose.

Not true, the <$395B figure is for monies already allocated for fy2004, Iraq and Afghanistan included.  What Bush hasn't "disclosed" is the request for fy2005 military operations.  That's going to come in the form of a initial $20B request to get the military through the beginning of fy2005 (Oct 2004) to Jan 2005, at such time another request, much bigger, will be made.

Lets make sure we are comparing apples to apples here....

1) To give Bush credit for the $127B FY2001 budget surplus is ludicrous. FY01 was Clintons last budget, pieced together by his OMB, appropriated by Congress and took effect beginning Oct. 1, 2000. Yes Bush was in office operating for his first 8 months under this budget, and yes adjustments are made to this budget each month as with all budgets.....the fact remains these were Clinton's spending priorities appropriated by Congress, not Bush's.

http://www.cra.org/govaffairs/budget/fy2001/      

2) Bush's first budget was the FY02 budget, prepared by his OMB, appropriated by Congress, and began taking effect Oct. 1 2001.
Net result = $158B in the RED

Bush's 2nd budget, FY03, took effect Oct 1, 2002....
Net result = $375B in the RED

Now, the Publically held numbers I quoted you in my earlier post....  
The 9/28/01 numbers is the debt amount when Clinton's FY01 budget ended and Bush's FY02 numbers begin....the baseline by which to judge Bush's performance re: the public debt.

6/16/04 was the amount accumulated under Bush's watch to date....$890B more in publically held red ink.

3) It is true that Bush's numbers for our current fical year, FY04, are improving due largely to the improving economy...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A64130-2004May3&notFound=true

Yet....even with these revised numbers, and they are revised monthly, CBO estimates that when FY04 comes to a close we will be $477B more in RED INK.

CBO estimates that Bush's FY05 budget will be $358B in the RED.

These are CBO's estimates. Yes they are off sometimes but they are certainly more credable than anything the OMB puts out no matter which party is in the White House.

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5151&sequence=1&from=0

Hence.....even if the CBO's numbers are 25% less than their current estimates for FY04 and FY05 (current est total for FY04 & FY05 = $835B in red, minus 25% = $626B for FY04 & FY05) Bush's budget mess will be for his term:

FY02 = $158B in RED
FY03 = $375B in RED
FY04 & FY05 at 25% less than current CBO estimates = $626B in RED

Total RED = 1.159 TRILLION as a 1 term President (and thats assuming a 25% reduction in CBO's current estimates).

This also says nothing of the Supplementals that Bush will be asking for Iraq and Afghanistan, all of which will of course be borrowed.

So I ask you again, why are we asking for permanent tax cuts for those making over $200K a year, with this much deficit spending, whose interest costs alone will put presure on meeting the demands of the retiring Baby Boomers, at a time of war, with increasing defense spending for the war of terror?

Where is their sacrifice?

   

[mddem2004]

So I ask you again, why are we asking for permanent tax cuts for those making over $200K a year, with this much deficit spending, whose interest costs alone will put presure on meeting the demands of the retiring Baby Boomers, at a time of war, with increasing defense spending for the war of terror?

Where is their sacrifice?

1st) Why are you asking only those making more than 200k/year to "sacrifice" for the war effort?  Are we not all in this together?  And aren't the 200k/year earners STILL, even after the tax cuts, paying more of a percentage of their income in Federal taxes?

2nd) the purpose of the armed forces is to sacrifice so that the whole of the nation can go on living normal lives.  Their purpose is to stand guard, ready to commit violence in order for us to sleep peacefully at night.

3rd) The credit of the US is more than adequate to meet the needs of the armed forces - the armed forces aren't hurting because American aren't taxed "enough" - an M-16 works the same way regardless of how it was purchased, cash or credit.

(Sorry for the late response to your post, which I missed until now.)

I heard that April and May job numbers were revised downward as well.......35,000 fewer in May, didn't catch how many fewer in April.

You obviously didn't catch the meaning of my question regarding those making over $200,000 a year. I'm not asking for "only" the wealthy to sacrifice....I'm asking them to Start sacrificing. Yes they pay a larger percentage in taxes (thank god for a progressive tax code) but they and their businesses also benefit disproportionally for Federal spending as well (subsidies for Agri-business, infrastructure investment, college educated employees, etc.).

Permanent tax cuts benefiting disproportionally the top 2% of income earners, in an era of massive red ink (which will effect the future solvency of Soc Sec.) and a "War on Terror".......its not just bad fiscal policy.....its morally wrong.

Although I don't have any numbers....it would be interesting to see how many of our troops now in Iraq actually come from those familys making over $200,000. My money is on its less than 2%.....

[mddem2004]

Considering that fully 1/3 of the jobs created in the past  few months are seasonal/temp/low wage and non-benefited I would say it is significant. Junes numbers were less than what is needed to absorb new entrants to the work force, and Mays numbers were barely enough if we are to make a dent in the job loses over the last three years.

Last weeks numbers also showed that the average gross wage of $15.29 (I think the .29 is correct) is the same level as that of November 2001. Yet as we all know over those 31 months......inflation (even though low), rising health care costs, energy prices, costs of higher education, etc, etc, etc....have gone up. The American middle class IS losing ground.

And yet....it was also reported with the release of these job numbers, that the differential between corporate gross profits and workers wages are at an all time record high. Corporate America clearly is not hurting in this "recovery".

--------
Your arguments on the self employed I generally agree with, they are to be applauded. Yet your argument that the wealthy "will equip themselves with the skills necessary to pay their own way etc etc etc....." those making 200k a year have the means to be able to do so. Working 80 hours a week just to get by leaves little room to re-tool yourself every 2-3 years.

--------
MODU, jmfcst........Let me clarify my position on taxes and my "morality" statement.

I have always believed that the Republicans have gotten the issue of tax relief ass backwards. If you want to cut taxes....fine.....cut spending first or at least on a simultaneous 1 for 1 basis. Cutting taxes without cutting spending first or at the same time, as we have seen under Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 only produces unsustanable red ink. That red ink increases the amount of intersest owed on that debt which in turn puts pressures on the "purchasing power" of our federal tax dollars. That pressure will, as we've seen, crowds out federal spending on programs that are ....yes....necessary to help maintain a vibrant middle class let alone assist those that truly need help. Anybody can run on cutting taxes, we need bi-partisan political will to cut spending as well, and there hasn't been any of that since the mid to late 90's.

The numbers I've seen on Bush's initial 1.3 trillion tax cut showed that 42% of that amount went to the top 10% of income earners, and the bulk of that 42% went to the top 2%. Fine.....The problem is that this huge tax cut has produced huge deficits, which in turn has increased the interest payments to our debt, which in turn is crowding out spending on programs that are necessary for the middle class to remain vibrant. In effect the lower and middle classes are paying the price for the top ends tax cuts.

Take my own state of Maryland. In 2002 Bush did not increase federal aid to the states in a time of recession (I heard but don't know for sure that was the first time in decades this has not occured). The states (which all except Vermont must have balanced budgets) either had to cut spending (in Maryland higher education took the hit among others) raise taxes or reduced its commitments to local governments. Local governments hense had to use its only real income generator.....raise property taxes. Now of course the slowing economy effected all this as well, yet Bush's tax cuts which went in my view well overboard to the top end, played a major role in so many states winding up in the red.

Taken together.....yes......I stand by my statement...... that cutting taxes on the top 2% IS immoral IF that is in the end paid for by the middle and lower classes.  

Take just higher education as an example. In the 2003-04 school year the average tuition hike was 14%......14%!!! You tell me who is better able to keep pace with cost increases like that....the family of 4 who makes $200K or the family of 4 who makes $50K.

We have had a progressive tax system in this country for many decades now.....and you know what.....it has worked pretty well in the long run for both the middle class and affluent alike. But in a time of war, recession, and run away increases in health care and higher education..... the two things that keep people in the middle class.....we have no business maintaining Bush's cuts to the top 2% if it results in more red ink.
 

[mddem2004]

Your arguments on the self employed I generally agree with, they are to be applauded. Yet your argument that the wealthy "will equip themselves with the skills necessary to pay their own way etc etc etc....." those making 200k a year have the means to be able to do so. Working 80 hours a week just to get by leaves little room to re-tool yourself every 2-3 years.

Actually, those making 200k/years gained their initial skills PRIOR to earning the big bucks by working 80 hours a week.  

As far as those just getting by...it should be obvious that if you work 80 hours a week at two low-skill jobs, you're not going to get anywhere.  What is needed is to work one job while studying to increase your skills that will enable you to get higher paying work.  If that requires cutting back by living in public restrooms and eating mayonnaise sandwiches, then the thing to do is: live in public restrooms and eat mayonnaise sandwiches with a attitude that looks forward to better opportunities.

--------

MODU, jmfcst........Let me clarify my position on taxes and my "morality" statement...The numbers I've seen on Bush's initial 1.3 trillion tax cut showed that 42% of that amount went to the top 10% of income earners, and the bulk of that 42% went to the top 2%. Fine.....The problem is that this huge tax cut has produced huge deficits...yes......I stand by my statement...... that cutting taxes on the top 2% IS immoral IF that is in the end paid for by the middle and lower classes.  

When the rich pay an every increasing percentage of federal income taxes, even more so after Bush's tax cuts, I don't know how you conclude that the middle and lower class is going to end up paying off the debt.

Also, if the current system had been replaced in 2001, while the budget was still in surplus, by a revenue neutral flat-tax (say 17%), then, by your definition, it would be "moral" since it didn't produce deficits.  And since such a "moral" flat 17% tax would be a HUGE tax break to the wealthy, much greater than Bush's current tax cuts, it demonstrates the contradiction of you logic by your simultaneous claim that the rich have YET to sacrifice by paying their fair share.

Ya know....your "Let them Eat Mayonnaise" logic is errily similar to Reagans "Ketchup is a Vegitable" mentality......

I'll let our comments stand and let readers judge for themselves if "Living in Public Restrooms" is the proper public policy our government should pursue for familys struggling to get ahead.....